legal status & treatment -...

PASS

IA

I. INTRODUCTION

Right after the June 1967 War, during which Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Israeli government ille-gally annexed East Jerusalem, whereby the new municipal bound-ary was “purposely drawn… to include the maximum territory possible, with the minimum possible Palestinian population”1, and applied its law, jurisdiction and administration there.

Israel’s efforts at changing the facts on the ground to strengthen its control over the city and reduce the number of Palestinians went beyond altering the boundaries and had far-reaching effects on the legal status and rights of the city’s Palestinian population. To achieve this end, different legislation and legal procedures were applied to confiscate Palestinian property, restrict Palestinian construction, and set hurdles for residency and family unification. At the same time, investment in infrastructure and development was kept at a very low level.

This bulletin focuses on the legal aspects pertaining to the Palestinian residents of occupied Jerusalem, demonstrating how the principle of equality before the law - a well-established principle in civil legal systems - is absent in the city (and the occupied Palestinian territories at large), where Israel systematically implements the law in a discriminatory way against its own residents.

As one Israeli journalist put it:

“There is no self-deception from which the city doesn’t suffer. The capital is a capital only in its own eyes; the united city is one of the most divided in the universe. The alleged equality is a joke and justice is trampled on. Free access to the holy sites is for Jews only (and yes, for elderly Muslims). And the right of return is reserved for Jews. A Palestinian resident of Jerusalem is now in far greater danger of being lynched than a Jew in Paris. But here there’s nobody to raise hell. Unlike the Parisian Jew, the Palestinian can be expelled from Jerusalem. He can also be arrested with terrifying ease.”2

1 Krystall, Nathan, “Urgent Issues of Palestinian Residency in Jerusalem: a Study,” Jerusalem: Alternative Information Center, 1994, p.7.2 Levy, Gideon, “Jerusalem, the Capital of Apartheid, Awaits the Uprising,” Haaretz, 23 October 2014.

LegAL StAtuS & treAtment of PALeStInIAnS In JeruSALem

PASSIA Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Jerusalem

Tel: +972-2-6264426, Fax: +972-2-6282819, E-mail: [email protected] , Website: www.passia.org , PO Box 19545, Jerusalem

February 2016

Jerusalem Municipal Boundaries

Arab municipalityunder Jordanianrule, 1950-1967

Municipal boundaryunder the British Mandate,1923-1947

Municipal limitsunilaterally extendedby Israel between 1967-1993

Israeli municipal boundaries,1949-1967

AbuDis

DeirYassin

Malha

EinKarim

BeitSafafa

BeitHanina

QalandiaAirport

SurBaher

Shu'fat

OldCity

Ramallah

Bethlehem

Green Line

WestBank

IsraelJerusalem

Jerusalem Municipal Boundaries, 1947-2000

0 5 km

PALESTINE MAPS

Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA)

Contents:

I. Introduction .................................................... 1II. The Legal Status of East Jerusalem and

Palestinians in East Jerusalem Since 1967 ...... 2− The Legal Status of East Jerusalem under

International Law ......................................... 2− The Legal Status of East Jerusalem under

Israeli Law ................................................... 2− The Legal Status of Palestinians in East

Jerusalem under Israeli Law ........................ 3III. Main Legal Issues in East Jerusalem ............... 5

− Residency and Family Unification ............... 5− Planning, Building & House Demolition ..... 7

IV. Arrests and Detentions in East Jerusalem ........ 9− Juvenile Justice .......................................... 10− Courts ......................................................... 12

V. Other Issues of Discrimination ....................... 12VI. Conclusion ...................................................... 13Annex: Selected Israeli Laws & their Discriminatory Application on Palestinian Jerusalemites.....14

2

LegaL StatuS & treatmentof Palestinians in Jerusalem

II. The LegaL STaTUS Of eaST JeRUSaLeM aND PaLeSTINIaNS IN eaST JeRUSaLeM SINCe 1967

The Legal Status of East Jerusalem under International Law

The controversy surrounding the status of Jerusalem has been the subject of nu merous regula tions and ar-ticles of interna tional law, which unmistakably prohibit the an nexation of territory by force and consider East Jerusalem occupied territory and thus applicable to The Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

According to Articles 43 and 55 of The Hague Regulations the occupying power must respect the existing laws of the occupied territory and while its authorities may administer the land, they cannot claim sovereignty over it.3 With respect to belligerent occupation, the Fourth Geneva Convention lays out two basic propositions:

(1) occupation is a de facto and temporary situation; and(2) the occupying power is prohibited from claiming sovereignty over any of the occupied territory under its control.4

Thus, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 478 in 1980 in response to Israel’s 1980 Basic Law for Jerusalem, which formally annexed the occupied East Jerusalem territory, determining “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem […] are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”.5

In addition to violating fundamental obligations of international law, Israel’s practices and policies on the ground – aimed to consolidate its control of East Jerusalem –also defy a number of provisions of international humanitarian law.6

Israel, however, claims its “right” over unified Jerusa-lem based on its 3,000 years of history in the city and the argument that it had never been under Palestin-ian sovereignty, and therefore does not consider East Jerusalem as occupied territory. The majority of the international community again considers the entire city as still under international control according to United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 181 of 1947 (Partition Plan)7, which maintained Jeru-salem as corpus separatum under the mandate of the United Nations.8 This status was reaffirmed by UNGA Resolution 303 in 1949, when Israel gained full mem-bership at the UN.9

The Legal Status of East Jerusalem under Israeli Law

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the partition of Palestine and the establishment of two states - one Jewish, one Arab - in Palestine. When the British relinquished the mandate over Palestine and the ‘People’s Council’ (a body representing the local Jewish community) proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Israeli legal system initially was established.

3 Tabar, Natalie, “The Jerusalem Trap - The Looming Threat Posed by Israel’s Annexationist Policies in Occupied East Jerusalem,” Ramallah: Al-Haq, p. 35. The interna tional commu nity thus rejects Israel’s claim to both West and East Jerusalem as its “eternal undivided capi tal” and has consistently de-nounced Israeli attempts to change the sta tus of the city.4 Jean Pictet (ed.), The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Commentary – Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in the Time of War, ICRC, 2005, p. 275.5 The Society of St. Ives, Palestinian Families under Threat: 10 Years Ban of Family Unification in Jerusalem, 2013, p. 21.6 Tabar, Natalie, “The Jerusalem Trap, op. cit., p. 35.7 “Fact Sheet: Positions on the Legal Status of Jerusalem”, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, available at: http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_7186-1442-2-30.pdf?120718151647.8 Consular presence in Jerusalem is at times still referred to as “Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum” and the consuls do not present letters of credentials to the President of Israel nor to the Foreign Ministry. Benziman, Uzi. “Israeli Policy in East Jerusalem after Unification”, in Joel Kraemer, ed. Jerusalem: Problems and Prospects. New York: Praeger, 1980.9 “Palestinian Families Under Threat...”, op.cit., 21.

Map of Corpus Separatum

Green

East Jerusalem municipal sectionremaining underArab rule -1949

Corpus SeparatumOutline

West Jerusalemmunicipal section

conquered by Israel -1948

Green Line

Jerusalem and the Corpus Separatum proposed in 1947

Al-Izzariyya

Shu'fatAnata

Lifta

SheikhBadr

AbuDis

Silwan

MountScopusEnclave

Malha

EinKarim

DeirYassin

SurBaher

BeitSafafa

OldCity

BethlehemBeitSahur

BeitJala

BeitHanina

Hizma

Battir

0 5 km

On 29 November 1947, as part of its resolution on Palestine (Resolution 181 (II)A, the General Assemblyof the United Nations adopted the proposal that, "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpusseparatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations". Under this plan a referendum was to be held after ten years to seek the views of the City's residents as to whether the international regime should continue, or be modified.

JERUSALEM MAPS

Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA)

Corpus Separatum

3


The first enacted law was the Law of Administrative Ordinance (1948), which stated that the existing law would remain in force subject to further legislation. The First Knesset (parliament) enacted one of the most important laws of Israel - the Law of Return (1950), which expresses the claimed “historical” connection between the Jews and the land of Palestine, guaranteeing to every Jew the automatic right to immigrate to the new State of Israel and become a citizen.

Israel’s law applies within the borders established by the 1949 Armistice Agreements entered between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) after the 1948 War. In addition, Israel has extended its jurisdiction to all of the Palestinian territory it occupied during the course of the 1967 June War, including the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It is noteworthy that the Israeli legal system belongs neither to the family of common law nor to that of civil law but is a mixed jurisdiction. Since Israel has no formal constitution, laws which are enacted by the Knesset (particularly the Basic Laws of Israel) provide the framework for Israeli law, enriched by political and judicial precedent. The law also reflects political and historical influences and elements from the reigns of the Ottomans, the British Mandate authorities and successive Israeli governments.10

Applying Israeli Law, Jurisdiction and Administration to East Jerusalem

In order to strengthen its hold over occupied East Jerusalem and provide a legal cover for this action, the govern-ment submitted to the Knesset on 26 June 1967 three bills concerning Jerusalem11 and added the 1948 ‘Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11)’ to the 1967 Law and Administration Order (in the Law for the Amendment of the Law and Administration Order (no. 11), 1967). This addition applied the “law, jurisdiction and administration of the State” to any area which was formerly part of Mandatory Palestine, including East Jerusa-lem. Furthermore, the ‘Protection of Holy Places Law’ was enacted, which provided that “the Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.” The law was meant to water down international criticism of the annexation and to reduce friction between the different communities in Jerusalem.12 Finally, on 29 June 1967, the military commander of Jerusalem ordered the dissolution of the Arab municipality,13 and the ‘Municipalities Ordinance’ was to authorize the Minister of Interior to extend municipal boundaries as designated by government, followed by Israel’s proclamation under that the annexed territory was included within the boundaries of the Jerusalem Municipality.14

The Legal Status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem under Israeli Law

Palestinians in East Jerusalem were henceforth governed by domestic Israeli law and not subject to the military regime prevailing in the remaining occupied territories (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). However, Israel’s three-tiered system of laws accorded different civil status, rights and legal protections to Jewish Israeli citizens, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, by:

1) defining East Jerusalem as a part of “Jerusalem, united and complete”, the capital of Israel (Basic Law: Je-rusalem, Capital of Israel, 1980), and “the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government, and the Supreme Court” (Sec. 2) as well as prohibiting transfer of authority to any “foreign body;”15

2) defining Israel (including occupied East Jerusalem) as the “state of the Jewish people” (e.g., Basic Law: the Knesset (1958), Amendment 9 of 1985; Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty of 1992), thus giving clear superiority to Jews;

3) granting superior civil status (“Jewish nationality”) and rights to Jewish citizens (e.g., Law of Return of 1950; Nationality Law of 1952), and second-class citizenship (without the rights and privileges of “Jewish national-ity”) to Palestinians.16

10 Levush, Ruth, “Features - A Guide to the Israeli Legal System”, available at: http://www.llrx.com/features/israel.htm.11 Halabi, Usama, “The Legal Status of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture, Vol. 4, No.1, 1997. 12 “The Legal Status of East Jerusalem,” Norwegian Refugee Council, December 2013, p. 8.13 Halabi, Usama, “The Legal Status of Palestinians in Jerusalem, op.cit.14 “The Legal Status of East Jerusalem,” Norwegian Refugee Council, December 2013, p. 8.15 “Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel,” http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm.16 “De-Palestinization and Forcible Transfer of Palestinians, A Situation of Systematic Breaches of State Obligations Under ICCPR,” Joint NGO Report, 2014, p.11.

4


After the War of 1967, two censuses were conducted in the now occupied territory: the first by the Ministry of the Interior in June 1967, the second by the Municipality via the Central Bureau of Statistics in September. Only those who were physically present within the newly delineated municipal boundaries in either of them were counted, registered in the Israeli population registry, and were granted Israeli identity cards as Jerusalem residents,17 while all others18 regardless of the reason for their absence were excluded from that status and lost their right to legally live in the city. Palestinian Jerusalemites were not automatically given Israeli citizenship, but could apply for it (which only a small number did), while they were allowed to hold or keep Jordanian passports.19 Thus, Israel de facto annexed East Jerusalem to Israeli territory without annexing its citizens, who instead received blue Israeli ID Cards from the Interior Ministry (rather than the orange ones issued by the military government for the Palestinians in the remaining West Bank and Gaza Strip). However, their actual legal status as “permanent residents” was only much later decided when the Israeli High Court ruled in the 1988 case of ‘Mubarak Awad vs. the Minister of Defense’ that the 1952 ‘Law of Entry into Israel’ applies to Palestinian Jerusalemites (although they had never “entered” the country in the first place…):20

“In summary: the States jurisdiction and administration apply to East Jerusalem. Based on this applicability, the entry to Israel law also applies to East Jerusalem. Therefore, the stay of East Jerusalem residents, who have not been naturalized, is possible by a residency permit. Every person covered by the census conducted in 1967 is regarded as holding a permanent residency permit.”21

The 1952 ‘Law of Entry into Israel’ gives discretion to the Minister of Interior to accord various types of residency to persons who live in Israel but do not fulfill the requirements of the 1950 ‘Law of Return’ and the 1952 ‘Nationality Law.’22 Eligible for “residency permits” that allow them to live in the city, Palestinians of Jerusalem are denied both Palestinian and Israeli citizenship.23

While their status as “residents” give them some rights, they have, in return, to bear almost all duties imposed by various Israeli laws: they became, for example, eligible for national insurance allowances (for children, the elderly, the disabled, etc.) and were given the right to vote in municipal, but not national, elections. On the other hand, they have to pay taxes to both the Israeli government and the Israeli Jerusalem municipality.

Also affected are Palestinian businesses and companies in the city, which are obliged to register with the Israeli Companies Registrar and/or obtain Israeli business licenses. Furthermore, the right to build (houses, institutions, etc.), even on privately owned land, is under the control of the discriminatory policy of the Israeli construction and planning authorities and was thus subject to Israeli approval.24

17 According to the 1967 census, there were 44,369 people within the former Jordanian municipal boundaries, suggesting that some 20,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled from the city during the 1967 War. 18 Approximately 30,000 Palestinians; see Badil, Eviction, Restitution and Protection of Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, 1999.19 Israeli citizenship is subject to the 1952 Nationality Law, whose rules and provisions do not apply to the average Palestinian. 20 HCJ 282/88 Mubarak Awad v. Prime Minister of Israel (1988) 42(2) PD 424. Ruling on that case, the High Court also determined that “residency” has a legal and a practical dimension: de facto residence in Israel does not entail the right to live here, unless the Minister of Interior expressly grants permission to do so. Second, such permission becomes void if a person does not actually put it into effect. Therefore, whoever shifts the center of his life outside Israel loses the right to come back and live in it. See Halabi, Usama, “Legal Status of the Population of East Jerusalem since 1967,” Civic Coalition-Jerusalem, available at http://civiccoalition-jerusalem.org/system/files/documents/chap._1-legal_status_of_the_population_of_ej.pdf.21 Ibid.22 The Society of St. Ives, Palestinian Families under Threat, op.cit., p.6.23 The PA has a clear policy not to issue ID cards to any Palestinian whose Jerusalem residency has been revoked as this would serve to provide Israeli authorities with additional means and excuses to continue its revocation practice. 24 Halabi, Usama, “The Legal Status of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” op. cit.

Israeli-issued Identity Card

5


In addition, any Palestinian Jerusalemite who wants to travel abroad (regardless of the purpose) and be able to return must obtain either a special travel document (‘laissez-passer’) to leave through Ben-Gurion Airport or an Israeli ‘exit permit’ to cross the Allenby Bridge into Jordan.

From the outset of the occupation, Israel treated Palestinians of Jerusalem as foreign immigrants in their own homeland, although they never immigrated from somewhere else. Thus they had no right in the city, from where their family originated and had lived since generations.

III. MaIN LegaL ISSUeS IN eaST JeRUSaLeM

Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, Israel’s primary objective has been to create a demographic and geographic reality that will thwart any future attempt to challenge its sovereignty over the city and to maintain a ‘demographic balance’ in Jerusalem, i.e., ensuring a 70% Jewish majority in the city - a target that was set in 1973 but is today confronted with a ratio of almost 60% Jews to 40% Palestinians.25

To achieve these goals, the Israeli government has taken several actions and measures, all in violation of interna-tional law, including: revoking residency and social benefits, applying discriminatory housing and building poli-cies, neglecting infrastructure and services in Palestinian areas, and physically isolating East Jerusalem from its West Bank hinterland through the construction of the separation barrier and a restrictive checkpoint and permit regime.

Residency and Family Unification

Until 1995, the status of the Palestinian residents was not affected as long as they renewed their exit permits at the Ministry of Interior regularly every three years, and they were even free to live outside the city’s municipal boundaries in the West Bank, which many actually did due to family ties and because purchasing land or homes was easier and cheaper.

This policy changed in December 1995 with the Ministry of the Interior arguing that permanent residency, unlike citizenship, was a matter of daily reality and therefore, Palestinian residents had to prove that Jerusalem was their “center of life” by submitting “evidences” such as bills (for arnona tax, electricity, water and telephone), rental contracts/ownership certificates, proof of school enrollment and health insurance in the city, salary slips, etc. Failure to provide such documentation for the past consecutive seven years resulted in losing the right to live and work in the city (as well as in the rest of Israel) as well as denial of social benefits. The residency status of children was also revoked unless the second parent had a valid residency status.26

Revocation of Residency

Besides the inability to prove one’s “center of life”, residency rights of Palestinians in Jerusalem can also be revoked in accordance with the 1974 Entry to Israel Regulations, which stipulate that a residency permit ends, if:

- a condition made by the Interior Minister for maintaining the permit’s effect is not met, or- a change is made to the visa associated with the permit by an unauthorized person, or - the permit holder stays outside Israel for seven or more years, or- he/she applies for or receives a permanent residency permit by/becomes a national of another state, or- he/she is suspected of posing a “national threat” to Israel.27

25 “Residency Revocation,” The Coalition for Jerusalem, http://www.coalitionforjerusalem.org/about-residency-rights/residency-revocation.26 B’Tselem, “Background on East Jerusalem,” op.cit. A child born to parents where only one is a resident of Jerusalem does not receive an identity number. After birth, the parents receive only a form titled “Notification of Live Birth.” To receive an identity number and Jerusalem residency, the parents must submit a “Request to Register a Birth” to Israeli authorities. See also the following section ‘Family Unification and Child Registration’.27 “Residency Revocation,” The Coalition for Jerusalem, op.cit.

Israeli-issued Travel Document

6


The above not only provided the pretext for the revocation of at least 14,416 Jerusalem ID cards from Palestinians since 196728, but also added to the already severe housing crisis in the city, as many Jerusalemites moved back fearing the loss of their ID Cards. In addition, thousands of Palestinian mixed-residency couples became subject to family unification procedures in order to legally reside together in East Jerusalem.29

Family Unification

Until 2002, Israeli citizens or residents of East Jerusalem applying for family unification with their spouses from the West Bank or Gaza underwent a multi-year process, upon the successful completion of which the non-Israeli spouses obtained residency or citizenship. Following a suicide attack perpetrated by a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, however, the Minister of Interior decided in March 2002 to both freeze pending and disallow any further applications. In May 2002, this new policy was officially confirmed in a government resolution, and on 31 July 2003, the Knesset finalized it with the passing of ‘The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision) 5763-2003’.30 Although the law was passed as a temporary, one-year provision, it empowered the government to extend its validity, with the approval of the Knesset, which ever since 2003 has extended it, most recently on 15 June 2015. The reasoning behind this becomes clear from the opinion expressed by Supreme Court judge Justice Asher Grunis, who in 2012 rejected petitions against the Citizenship Law, by saying: “Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.”31

The law denies Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (excluding East Jerusalem) Israeli citizenship or residency, with the exception of children up to the age of 11 who have one parent legally residing in Israel (so as to avoid the separation of a minor from his or her resi-dent/citizen parent). These Palestinians are only eligible to apply for temporary permits for work or medical care in Israel/Jerusalem, but are prohibited from living with their spouses in those places. Further-more, the law prohibits transferring the registration of children, who were registered in the Palestinian population registry, to the Israeli population registry, and allows the Minister of Interior to grant resi-dency status or entry permits to Palestinians from the Occupied Ter-ritories who collaborate with Israeli authorities and to their families.32

Between 2000 and July 2013, 35% of all family unification applications (= 4,249 of a total of 12,284) were rejected, mainly due to security or ‘center of life’ reasons, and between 2004 and July 2013, 22.3% of all applications for registering children born in Jeru salem but out of mixed marriages (i.e., only one parent with Jerusalem ID) were rejected (= 3,933 of a total of 17,616), leaving them without a legal status and thus no rights to health insurance and educa tion.33

Child Registration

While children of Israeli citizens are entitled to citizenship by virtue of their parentage and are registered with the Ministry of Interior before they even leave the hospital, children of East Jerusalem resident have no such “birthright” and their parents must file an application for “child registration,” the approval (or denial) of which it can take years.34 Generally this applies to children where only one parent is an East Jerusalem resident, but even

28 Interior Ministry data provided to HaMoked, available at: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2015/1159360_eng.pdf. In 2014, 107 ID cards were revoked. 29 See, for example, Deger, Allison, “Jerusalem’s ‘Center of Life’ Policy Imprisons Palestinians,” 24 April 2012, http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/jerusalems-center-of-life-policy-imprisons-palestinians; and Jefferis, Danielle C., “The ‘Center of Life’ Policy: Institutionalizing Statelessness in East Jerusalem, Institute for Palestine Studies, 2010.30 Arab East Jerusalem – A Reader, Jerusalem: PASSIA, 2014. For a detailed analysis of the Law’s various versions/amendments, see The Society of St. Yves, Childhood Interrupted: Child Registration in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, November 2014.31 El-Ad, Hagai, “Citizenship Law prefers discrimination over human rights,” +972 Mag, 24 January 2012, available at: http://972mag.com/citizenship-law-compels-us-to-protect-human-rights-from-rule-of-law/33723/.32 B’Tselem, “Background on East Jerusalem,” op.cit.33 The Society of St. Ives, Palestinian Families under Threat: 10 Years Ban of Family Unification in Jerusalem, 2013.34 The Society of St. Yves, Childhood Interrupted, op.cit., p. 9.

Child holding a visiting permit

7


if both parents are Jerusalemites they are not automatically spared from the arbitrary child registration process - which does not follow clear criteria and often makes legal counsel necessary - in order for them to demand their most basic legal rights.35

Planning, Building and House Demolitions

Almost half a century of government-sponsored segregationist and discriminatory urban planning has resulted in a situation where Jewish settlers constitute at least 40% of the entire population in occupied East Jerusalem.36

According to international law, Israel is obliged to act according to the law that was in force at the time of the occupation of East Jerusalem, i.e., the Jordanian Law of Cities, Villages and Buildings No. 79 of 1966. However, after the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, vast areas of land were expropriated to make way for Jewish settlements and the planning policy in East Jerusalem became a political consideration. The existing Jordanian outline plans were invalidated, but not replaced by the Jerusalem municipality, which created a planning void that assisted Israel’s plans to obstruct any development and building for the city’s Palestinian inhabitants and is still valid as of today.37 Israel imposed its own 1965 Israeli Building and Planning Law, which requires for any construction in East Jerusalem a permit issued by the Israeli municipality, and which allows the demolition of (part of) a house if it has been or is being built without a permit or deviating from a permit’s conditions. While the law does not appear to be overtly discriminatory, it is so when it comes to its enforcement, which is one of Israel’s key strategies for diminishing their presence in the city.38

Israel has expropriated approximately 24,500 dunums of mostly privately owned Palestinian land - over one third of the territory illegally annexed to Jerusalem –mainly under the Absentees’ Property Law and for alleged “public” purposes,39 i.e., to establish settlements which today house some 195,000 to 200,000 settlers.40 Only some 13% of East Jerusalem land (about 9,180 dunums) is zoned for Palestinian construction, and this is primarily already built-up areas. In addition, large areas of land were declared as “green areas” - where building is forbidden - and far more territory was zoned for Jewish (settlement) construction than for Palestinian purposes.41

Furthermore, Israeli authorities have also rejected at least two Palestinian planning proposals on the grounds that they were inconsistent with provisions of the Jerusalem Master Plan 203042, which has not even been formally approved and is thus not yet legally valid. The plan’s discriminatory nature is evident in one of its stated objectives, which is to maintain the 70:30 Jewish-Arab ratio within the city, although Palestinians make up already some 40% of the population.43

As a result of the above, the housing density in Palestinian neighborhoods is an average of two persons to a room, which is more than twice that of Jewish neighborhoods, where it is 0.9 persons,44 and has forced many Palestinians to build homes without first obtaining a permit.

Housing and Construction Permit Policy for Palestinians in East Jerusalem

As Israel’s policy in East Jerusalem is politically moti vated, aimed at maintain ing a Jewish majority in the city, it is very difficult (and expensive) for Palestinians to obtain building per mits. According to figures by the Israeli Interior Ministry and the Jerusalem municipality at least 20,000 buildings in East Jerusalem (=39% of the total)

35 Ibid. 36 Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem 2015.37 B’Tselem, “Background on East Jerusalem,” op.cit.38 An increasing number of Palestinians are moving elsewhere in the West Bank, especially to neighborhoods like Kufr ‘Aqab which lie beyond the separation barrier but within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and where housing is cheaper and building laws are less strictly enforced.39 Halabi, Usama, Israel’s Absentees’ Property Law: Application of the Law in occupied East Jerusalem, Civic Coalition-Jerusalem, 2013. On 15 April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court – contradicting the positions of former Attorney Generals - affirmed the applicability of the Absentee Property Law to properties in East Jerusalem belonging to Palestinians living in the West Bank, thus giving the green light for further expropriations. 40 Arab East Jerusalem – A Reader, Jerusalem: PASSIA, 2014.41 B’Tselem, “Background on East Jerusalem,” op.cit.42 It is telling that the Plan, which intends to define the scope of all development in the city until 2030, was drafted by a 31-member committee, of which only one member was Palestinian. See for details Human Rights Watch, Separate and Unequal, Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, New York, 2010.43 See footnote 21.44 Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, 2015.

8


have been built without per mits.45 Among the main obstacles in obtaining building permits are the lack of approved planning schemes, Israel’s de claration of large areas of East Jerusalem land as ‘unfit for building’ or as ‘green’ or ‘open space’ (where construction is for bidden), and the difficulty of proving land ownership46.47 In addition, building rights in Palestinian areas often do not exceed 50-70% of the plot area, compared to 75-120% in Israeli neighborhoods.48

Given infrastructure requirements that are largely unfeasible for such a dense area and the high costs involved in planning and permits49, Palestinians are all but compelled to build without the required authorizations in order to accommodate for the growing populace. It is estimated that over 90,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem are at risk of displacement as their homes were built “ille gally”.50 East Jerusalem suffers from a shortage of an estimated 40,000 hous ing units for Palestinians.51

House Demolitions

Unlicensed construction provides the munici-pality with a pretext to punish the builder two-fold: (1) with a monetary fine plus the require-ment either to produce a permit or restore the status quo ante, and (2) house demolishing. Since 1967, way over 2,000 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in East Jerusalem alone. Most recently, 74 structures were demolished in 2015 as of mid-October (in 2014 and 2013 the total was 98 each, in 2012 64), displacing 104 people (compared to 208 in 2014, 298 in 2013 and 71 in 2012)52.

Another reason for house demolitions is (collective) punishment, used by the Israeli authorities as a “deterrent”, in which case the family home of a Palestinian accused of engaging in violent action against the occupation (or the house of a close family member) is destroyed - in contravention of international law.

45 ACRI, East Jerusalem 2015: Facts & Figures, May 2015.46 This is because land is often owned by several inheritors and Israel froze the land registration processes for non-Jewish property owners after 1967 so that today, approx. half of the land in East Jerusalem is not registered in any form. In addition, Israel’s demand (since 2001) that Palestinians register land with the Land Registry is a very complex and expensive for the owners (unlike in Israel proper, where this is done by the au thorities!), and people fear to have land seized by the General Custodian or the Custodian of Absentee Property (on the pretext that one of the owners, their heirs or descendants do not live within the city).47 Ir Amim, Displaced in Their Own City, June 2015.48 Margalit, M. Demolishing Peace: House Demolitions in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem: IPCC, 2014.49 For details on building permits in East Jerusalem, see: “Applying for a Building Permit in East Jerusalem: Information, Counseling and Legal Assistance,” Norwegian Refugee Council. 50 OCHA, Humanitarian Atlas 2015, October 2015.51 ILO, The Situation of Workers of the Occupied Arab Territories, 2013.52 OCHA, Protection of Civilians, Weekly Report, December 15-28, 2015, previous reports.

House demolition in East Jerusalem

9


Demolition orders are also delivered to serve the needs of Israeli construction (i.e., make way for infrastructure, the separation barrier, settlement expansion, the establishment of parks or archaeological sites) or the army (establishing firing ranges or setting up army bases) in clear violation of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stipulates that:

“Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

The above practices are in stark contrast to the city’s Jewish areas, for which outline plans exist, and to settler enclaves, where authorities turn a blind eye on unlicensed housing.

Israeli authorities also enforce the building laws on Palestinians (80%) much more stringently than on Jews (20%), in whose areas the number of violations is much higher. From 1996-2001, for example, 82% of building violations in Jerusalem were in Jewish neighborhoods as compared to 18% in Palestinian areas.53 The following table illustrates further evidence:

2004-2008 east West TotalBuilding violations detected 5,898 21,419 27,317Administrative & Judicial Demolition orders issued 5,004 5,817 10,821Demolition carried out 419 151 560% of orders the Mayor has refused to authorize 12% 29% Source: http://capi.org.il/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Demolishing-Peace.pdf

While the above numbers speak for themselves, they do not include self-demolitions nor do they reveal that most of the demolitions in East Jerusalem target entire buildings, while those in the West are mostly extensions added on existing buildings.54

IV. aRReSTS aND DeTeNTIONS IN eaST JeRUSaLeM

With its neighborhoods in neglect and check-points, movement restrictions and other daily provocations omnipresent, East Jerusalem has become a scene of regular clashes between Israeli security forces, whose excessive use of force has been widely documented55, and Palestinians, who are subjected to brutal home incursions, attacks by Israeli settlers and extremists and abusive po-lice’s behavior not interested in indicting Jewish perpetrators, and to selective law enforcement, including arbitrary arrests and detentions, clos-ing off of neighborhoods, and large-scale enforce-ment operations, such as increased traffic tickets, car inspections, fines for failing inspections or bills, etc.. After years of bad experience, Palestinians feel completely unprotected in their city as they do not consider Israeli police “as a body meant to serve and protect them” but as “a hostile, alien force whose power is chiefly used against them, ignoring their basic needs and security and instead favoring the interests of Jerusalem’s Jewish population.”56

53 Etkes, Dror & Lara Friedman, “Settlements in Focus: Settlers vs. Palestinians: Double Standards and Illegal Construction”, Peace Now, March 2006.54 Margalit, Meir, Demolishing Peace – House Demolitions in East Jerusalem 2000-2010, Jerusalem: IPCC, 2014; available at http://capi.org.il/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Demolishing-Peace.pdf.55 See, for example, testimonies and case studies at www.acri.org, www.btselem.org, or http://silwanic.net.56 For that reason Palestinians rarely call upon the Jerusalem police except under exceptional circumstances. Not only do they lack confidence in the police but they also fear that the police will try to get from them information about other incidents or residents. ACRI, “Ahead of Jerusalem Day: Police Treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem,” May 31, 2011, http://www.acri.org.il/en/2011/05/31/ahead-of-jerusalem-day-acri-documents-police-treatment-of-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem/.

Palestinians denied access to Al-Aqsa Mosque forced to pray in the streets of Jerusalem

10


Unlike the West Bank where Israeli military law is administered, East Jerusalem falls under Israeli civilian law, thus Palestinian prisoners from Jerusalem are viewed as prisoners under the authority of the State of Israel, rather than political prisoners of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which denies them their status as “protected persons” under international humanitarian law.57 Instead, Israel registers East Jerusalemites as security prisoners in accordance with the definition of “Security Prisoner” in the Israel Prison Service’s ‘Commission Ordinance No. 04.05.00 - Definition of a Security Prisoner’. Classification is an internal administrative decision not based on leg-islation. The definition of a security prisoner derives from the nature and character of the offense and depends on whether it was committed against a security background or based on nationalistic motives, and removes a number of essential procedural safeguards that are provided to criminal suspects. In accordance with ‘Com-mission Ordinance Number 03.02.00 - Rules Relating to Security Prisoners’, which states that security prisoners should be held in separate prisons and/or in separate wings of mixed prisons, this classification determines in which prison the detainee will be held and which “rights” he has.58

Yet, while Palestinians from East Jerusalem are subjected to civil law, military court jurisdiction can be extended to them if their alleged offense was committed in or has ties to the West Bank, which is easy for Prosecution to “prove” as regular practice has shown. Detaining and interrogating East Jerusalemites under military orders makes them security prisoners and permits periods of detention with little or no effective judicial oversight: they can be held without being brought before a judge for up to eight days (instead of the “usual” maximum of four days), without access to legal counsel for up to 90 days (“usually” no more than 21 days), and without charge for up to 188 days (“usually” up to 64 days).59

Palestinian Jerusalemites are tried in the Israeli civil system, which allows prosecutors to ask for harsher penalties based on the argument that ‘security’ offences are less common in the Israeli civil system than in the military system that is in place in the West Bank and Gaza. As security prisoners within the Israeli civil system, Palestinians are also subjected to physical and psychological abuse and ill-treatment.60 Palestinian security prisoners are denied the privileges of Israeli criminal prisoners who are typically entitled to earn money inside the prison, receive family visits without a glass divider, have as many books or other items they want in their cell, and if long-term prisoners, are allowed to take occasional visits outside the prison.61

Juvenile Justice

The “territorial” distinction is particularly severe when it comes to the treatment of minors and the gross misapplication of the Israeli Youth Law, which, theoretically, applies equally to Palestinian and Israeli children. However, an Israeli child accused of stone-throwing, for instance, will receive a substantially different treatment, being afforded the wide protections and rights that are granted to minors under Israeli law, which greatly emphasizes the protection of minors. The Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Methods of Treatment) (Amendment 14) of 2008, was designed to ensure that treatment of minor suspects reflects the provisions of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as Israel’s ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty’, and “protect the rights of the minor, whether suspected or accused of committing a crime, taking into account his yet developing capacities and the overriding principle of protecting the welfare of the child,” while underlying the premise that “juvenile’s delinquency may be reformed by means of appropriate treatment and punishment...”.62

57 Which is also the reason why they have been almost entirely excluded from negotiated prisoner releases in the past. See for details Addameer, “East Jerusalem Prisoners,” http://www.addameer.org/content/east-jerusalem-prisoners.58 No Legal Frontiers, “Prisons in Israel”, available at http://nolegalfrontiers.org/general-information/military-prisons?lang=en.59 “Forgotten City, Forgotten People: Jerusalemite Political Prisoners, the Oslo Process and a Struggle for Freedom,” Addameer Background Paper, June 2011.60 See addameer.org and dci-palestine.org for details and case studies. 61 “Forgotten City, Forgotten People,” op.cit.62 Alyan, Nisreen, “Violations of the ‘Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Methods of Treatment) – 2008’ by the Israeli Police in East Jerusalem,” The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, March 2011; see also Kassis, Rifat O., “Equal laws, discriminatory practice: the plight of Jerusalem children”, Maannews, 29 Oct. 2013.

Arrest of a Palestinian boy

11


According to the Israeli Juvenile Law, arrests should be a last resort, children below the age of 12 years are not criminally responsible, questioning requires advance notice as well as the presence of a legal guardian or adult family member, there should be minimal use of restraints. If arrested,

• any minor under the age of 14 should only be interrogated between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. and be presented to court within 12 hours;

• any minor between the ages of 14 and 18 should only be interrogated between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and be presented to court within 24 hours;

• any minor suspect should be called for interrogation with the presence of any of his parents; • interrogators of minors should immediately inform the social worker when deciding to arrest him/her;• minors should not be handcuffed if the arrest is controllable;• it is illegal to keep minors younger than 12 years in custody or to interrogate them as they are not criminally

culpable;63 and• the presence of a special child interrogator is essential and the interrogation should be recorded.

However, in practice, when it comes to Palestinian minors, the police in Jerusalem make use of the exceptions established by the Youth Law, leaving East Jerusalem children, including those under 12 years of age, legally unpro-tected – in grave violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed by Israel in 1991.64 Arrests are often used to intimidate the youth, extract information from them, and to scare them to deter them from becom-ing politically active: for instance, they are arrested during night raids, many times on suspicion only, and often handcuffed. In 90% of the cases they are interrogated in the absence of a parent, in police cars and at interrogation centers, sometimes for several hours - day and night - with no food or water offered, deprived of sleep, and with violence and threats used in questioning. Many children are also arrested for offences they have allegedly commit-ted weeks earlier, and often they are forced to sign documents in Hebrew, a language they do not read or write. 65

It is noteworthy that of the 1,900 Palestinians from East Jerusalem that Israeli forces detained in 2015, around two-thirds were minors.66 In October, three Palestinian boys were placed in administrative detention (i.e., imprisonment without trial), marking the first time that this is used against minors holding Israeli citizenship or residency.67 To cope with the increasing number of child detainees, the Israel Prison Services opened a new juvenile section at the Giv’on prison near Ramleh, the conditions of which have been described as “inadequate and fail[ing] minimum standards for a prison.”68

Furthermore, in contradiction to the accepted norms of criminal law, Israeli authorities geographically restrict local residents in East Jerusalem as a pressure and intimidation tactic, more recently by military restraining orders, which go back to the “state of emergency regulations” enacted in 1945. These allow security forces to use “secret evidence” to restrict a person’s movement or even banning him/her from his home and/or hometown for a certain period.69

The recent escalation against Palestinian minors in Jerusalem is also reflected in new legislation; In July 2015, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Penal Code that raised the maximum sentence for stone throwing to 20 years, and on 3 November, a series of further amendments were made, including, inter alia, imposing a 10-year prison sentence “for throwing stones or other objects at moving vehicles with the possibility of endangering passengers or causing damage,” reducing judicial discretion, depriving children convicted of “nationalistic-motivated” offenses from social benefits during their imprisonment, and imposing fines on their families up to NIS 10,000.70 Another controversial bill allows for the imprisonment of Palestinian children as young as 12 years and has already passed its first reading in the Knesset with a vote of 64 to 22.71

63 Wadi Hilweh Info Center, Issues 2014 Report, 11 February 2015.64 Alyan, Nisreen, “Violations of the ‘Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Methods of Treatment) – 2008’ by the Israeli Police in East Jerusalem,” Jerusalem: ACRI, March 2011.65 Ibid., and “April monthly report: A Martyr in Jerusalem and the arrest of 120 Jerusalemites and isolation of 35 citizens from Al-Aqsa Mosque,” Wadi Hilweh Information Center, 5 May 2015, available at: http://silwanic.net/?p=58422. DCI-Palestine, “For Palestinian Children of East Jerusalem, the Exception is the Rule,” July 29, 2015.66 Palestinian Prisoners’ Center for Studies, quoted in “Group: Majority of Jerusalem Palestinians detained in 2015 were minors,“ Ma’anNews, January 10, 2016. 67 Hasson, Nir, “For First Time, 3 East Jerusalem Minors Imprisoned Without Trial”, Haaretz, 22 October 2015.68 “’Giv’on’…A new prison to harass detained children”, 9 Nov. 2015, available at: http://silwanic.net/?p=64947.69 See silwanic.net or http://samidoun.net for case studies.70 “Israel targets Palestinian children in East Jerusalem with harsh policies,” DCI Palestine, 28 November 2015.71 Ibid.

12


Most recently, on 2 February 2016, the Knesset passed another controversial bill into law: the so-called “Stop and Frisk Law” basically grants police the authority to search anyone without a warrant in order to determine whether they carry a weapon.72 Previously, sufficient reason to suspect a person and signs pointing to a possibly concealed weapon, such as a bulge in the target’s clothing concealing a weapon. In addition, the new law allows the chief of a police district to designate a location as suspected of terrorist activity thus permitting body searches for illegal weapons there.73

Courts

Palestinians in East Jerusalem are subjected to the Israeli court system on all legal issues. The general law courts (the ‘regular courts’) in Israel are comprised of three instances based on hierarchy: from the Magistrate Court, to the District Court and finally the Supreme Court, each of which is in charge of certain offenses, for which Palestinians of East Jerusalem are usually brought to courts.

V. OTheR ISSUeS Of DISCRIMINaTION

Selective law enforcement74 and discrimination affects every aspect of the daily lives of Palestinians in Jerusalem, including:

• Taxation: Israeli law does not differentiate between an Israeli citizen and a permanent resident when it comes to taxes. Income tax is due from any income generated in Israel, the Value Added Tax (VAT) is due from all dealers, craftsmen and service providers, and arnona (property tax) is levied on all houses and businesses (per m2 and at rates A, B or C depending on location). Given that Palestinian incomes are typically much lower the taxes levied on them are a huge burden and, unlike Israelis, they get little in services in return.

• Discriminatory law enforcement regarding fines for traffic violations, parking offences, no TV license, etc.

72 Lis, Jonathan, “Knesset Passes Controversial 'Stop-and-frisk' Law”, Haaretz, 2 February 2016.73 “'Stop-and-frisk' bill gets final approval,” Ynetnews, 2 February 2016.74 For more details on the discriminatory application of Israeli law see also the table in the annex of this bulletin.

13


• Municipal spending/provision of services: While all Jerusalemites pay taxes, no more than 10% of the mu-nicipal budget is allocated to the Palestinian residents of the city who account for at least 37% of the overall population. In sharp contrast to Jewish areas Palestinian areas depict poor roads, little or no street cleaning, and hardly any maintained public spaces.75

• Education: Israeli authorities have not only tried to impose Israeli-censored textbooks - with all references to Palestinian national history and Muslim or Christian identity erased - on the Palestinian schools in Jerusalem but also the Israeli curriculum altogether (i.e., studying for the Israeli bagrut ra ther than the tawjihi). Taking the tawjihi exam does not qualify the student to attend Israeli higher education institutions. In addition, as permanent residents, Palestinians in East Jerusalem are granted the same social en title ments as Israeli citizens, including the right to public free education. However, only about half the Pales tinian children in Jerusalem cur-rently attend public schools, while the oth ers pay for private or unofficial education, attend Waqf schools, or do not attend school at all.76

• Institutions: While Israel has established several public institutions (courts, Justice Ministry, Police head-quarters, etc.) in East Jerusalem - in breach of international law – Palestinians have had a number of their in-stitutions closed down (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Higher Council of Tourism Land Research Center, Social Services Department, etc.) and live, since the closure of the Orient House on 2001, in a political vacuum with no representation (any PLO activity is forbidden). Activities organized by Palestinian civil society organiza-tions are frequently banned and public meetings suspended by the Israeli police.

• Tourism: Numerous Israeli touristic projects in East Jerusalem intend to Judaize that part of the city77 while access to holy places remains restricted not only to Palestinians from the West Bank but increasingly also to those living in the city.

• Arabic is an official language in Israel, many official governmental forms are only available in Hebrew, making most official institutions and their publications inaccessible for Arabic-only speakers.

• According to the Social Security Law Israelis moving to settlements in the West Bank are entitled to the same rights and benefits as any other Israeli citizen, while East Jerusalem residents who move to the West Bank lose those rights.78

VI. CONCLUSION

The treatment of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem as immigrants, whose status is constantly under the threat of revocation and who are systematically deprived of fundamental human rights, the ongoing restrictions on their movement as well as on their planning and building rights, the denial of family unification and child registration, their constant exposure to (arbitrary) attacks and arrests, are all part of Israel’s strategy to silently force Palestinians to leave the city.

If the State of Israel continues to insist that East Jerusalem must be part of Israel, it must apply to this part of the city and its Palestinian residents the normative human rights protection granted by Israeli law and oblige the Jerusalem Municipality to apply equal rights and treatment to the entire city, and stop to be the probably only municipality in the world that treats a large part of its population as enemies.

75 In the east, for instance, there are only five benefit offices compared to the west’s 22; seven health centres for mothers and babies compared to the west’s 26; 33 sports facilities compared to 531, and 45 public parks compared to 1,000. There are 30,000 residents per playground in the east, compared to 1,000 residents in the west. See PASSIA Diary 2016.76 Over 40,000 Palestinian students, who are entitled to free public education, are forced to pay for private tuition at non-public schools due to the lack of suitable facilities and shortage of classrooms. See Arab East Jerusalem- A Reader, op cit. for details.77 E.g., the “City of David” with its visitors’ center, archaeological excavations aimed at emphasizing the Jewish heritage.78 Article 40 of the 1995 Social Security Law even denies East Jerusalemite mothers giving birth in Israeli hospitals coverage of the hospital expenses as well as birth allowances and benefits if they happen to live with their husbands in Gaza or the West Bank, even if their husbands work in Israel. See Halabi, Usama, “Legal Status of the Population of East Jerusalem,” op.cit. for details.

14


Ann

ex: S

elec

ted

Isra

eli L

aws

and

thei

r Une

qual

/Dis

crim

inat

ory

App

licat

ion

on P

ales

tinia

n Je

rusa

lem

ites

Sphe

re

Law

Co

nten

t/Im

plic

atio

n Je

ws

Pale

stin

ian

Jeru

sale

mite

s

Citiz

en-

ship

/ Id

entit

y

Law

of R

etur

n, Ju

ly 1

950

Re

gula

tes C

itize

nshi

p an

d Id

entit

y (“

Pale

stin

ian”

iden

tity

is no

t re

cogn

ized

in Is

rael

i law

or s

ocie

ty: P

ales

tinia

ns a

re re

ferr

ed to

as

Ara

b Is

rael

is)

- are

gra

nted

the

right

to

imm

igra

te a

nd b

ecom

e im

med

iate

ly Is

rael

i citi

zens

Not

app

licab

le

Nat

iona

lity

(or C

itize

n-sh

ip) L

aw, A

pril

1952

- A

men

dmen

t No.

9

(Aut

horit

y fo

r Rev

okin

g Ci

tizen

ship

), 20

08

De

fines

the

crite

ria u

nder

whi

ch a

per

son

can

be g

rant

ed

citiz

ensh

ip o

f Isr

ael.

Allo

ws t

he c

itize

nshi

p of

an

Isra

eli c

itize

n to

be

revo

ked

on th

e gr

ound

s of “

brea

ch o

f tru

st o

r disl

oyal

ty to

the

stat

e.”

- are

gra

nted

supe

rior c

ivil

stat

us

(“Je

wish

nat

iona

lity”

) and

righ

ts

- Not

app

lied

- can

app

ly b

ut h

ardl

y ob

tain

Isra

eli c

itize

nshi

p; e

ven

if, it

is

“sec

ond-

clas

s citi

zens

hip”

(with

out t

he ri

ghts

and

priv

ilege

s of

“Je

wish

nat

iona

lity”

) - A

pplie

d ev

en to

spou

ses a

nd c

hild

ren

of th

ose

who

co

mm

itted

a “

brea

ch o

f tru

st”

Entr

y in

to Is

rael

Law

, Se

ptem

ber 1

952

Re

gula

tes e

ntry

to a

nd re

siden

cy in

Isra

el d

efin

ing

both

as

priv

ilege

and

not

a ri

ght

Not

app

licab

le

- are

trea

ted

like

fore

igne

rs a

nd p

erm

anen

t tou

rists

in th

eir

own

hom

e to

wn

Popu

latio

n Re

gist

ry

Law

, 196

5

Requ

ires a

ll re

siden

ts o

f Isr

ael t

o re

gist

er th

eir n

atio

nalit

y [i.

e.,

Jew

ish, A

rab,

Dru

ze] a

nd o

btai

n an

iden

tity

card

car

ryin

g th

is in

form

atio

n.

Enjo

y al

l law

s and

righ

ts

are

disc

rimin

ated

by

the

prej

udic

ial a

pplic

atio

n of

law

in a

ll sp

here

s, fr

om th

e rig

hts t

o in

form

atio

n an

d fa

ir tr

ial t

o de

tent

ion

and

priso

n tr

eatm

ent

Entr

y in

to Is

rael

Reg

ula-

tions

, 197

4

Assig

ns th

e st

atus

of “

perm

anen

t res

iden

ts”

to E

ast J

erus

alem

Pa

lest

inia

ns

Reta

in th

eir c

itize

n st

atus

eve

n if

they

sett

le in

ano

ther

cou

ntry

- n

egat

es P

ales

tinia

n or

igin

and

iden

tity,

- l

ose

perm

anen

t res

iden

cy st

atus

if th

ey se

ttle

else

whe

re

Iden

tity

Cert

ifica

te

Law

, 198

2

Obl

iges

resid

ents

mus

t car

ry id

entit

y ca

rds a

t all

times

and

pr

esen

t the

m to

aut

horit

ies

Ar

e ra

rely

ask

ed to

pre

sent

thei

r ca

rds

are

freq

uent

ly a

sked

to p

rese

nt th

eir c

ards

Citiz

ensh

ip a

nd E

ntry

Into

Is

rael

Law

(tem

pora

ry

prov

ision

), 20

03

Re

gula

tes "

fam

ily u

nific

atio

n" fo

r non

-citi

zen

spou

ses a

nd

child

ren

of A

rab

Isra

eli c

itize

ns a

nd P

ales

tinia

ns fr

om Je

rusa

lem

N

ot a

pplic

able

- n

on-c

itize

n sp

ouse

s and

chi

ldre

n of

Pal

estin

ian

citiz

ens a

nd

resid

ents

are

pro

hibi

ted

from

ent

erin

g Is

rael

[and

livi

ng w

ith

thei

r spo

use/

pare

nt].

Land

Land

(Acq

uisi

tion

for

Publ

ic P

urpo

ses)

Ord

in-

ance

, 194

3 Am

endm

ent N

o. 1

0, 2

010

O

rigin

ally

ena

cted

by

the

Briti

sh; u

sed

by Is

rael

to a

utho

rize

the

conf

iscat

ion

of la

nds f

or st

ate

and

“pub

lic”

purp

oses

.

Co

nfirm

s sta

te o

wne

rshi

p of

conf

iscat

ed la

nd, e

ven

if no

t use

d to

se

rve

the

orig

inal

conf

iscat

ion

purp

ose

- has

bee

n us

ed e

xten

sivel

y, in

con

junc

tion

with

oth

er la

ws

to c

onfis

cate

Pal

estin

ian-

owne

d la

nd.

- pre

vent

s lan

dow

ners

from

dem

andi

ng th

e re

turn

of u

nuse

d co

nfisc

ated

land

Ab

sent

ee P

rope

rty

Law

(No.

20)

, Mar

ch 1

950

(bec

ame,

in p

rinci

ple,

ap

plic

able

in E

ast J

eru-

sale

m in

196

7)

Al

low

s con

fisca

tion

of p

rope

rty

from

any

Pal

estin

ian

owne

r who

w

as n

ot p

hysic

ally

pre

sent

“at

any

tim

e” fr

om N

ov. 2

9, 1

947

until

a d

ecla

ratio

n th

at th

e st

ate

of e

mer

genc

y de

clar

ed in

194

8 en

ded

[whi

ch h

as n

ot y

et h

appe

ned]

, in

the

coun

try

as

"abs

ente

e pr

oper

ty"

unde

r the

con

trol

of t

he st

ate

(via

the

Cust

odia

n of

Abs

ente

e Pr

oper

ty).

Not

app

licab

le

- def

ines

as “

abse

ntee

” any

one

who

was

not

pre

sent

in

Jeru

sale

m a

t the

tim

e of

the

Israe

li 19

67 c

ensu

s and

mak

es

thei

r pro

pert

y su

bjec

t to

conf

iscat

ion

by th

e Cu

stod

ian

of

Abse

ntee

Pro

pert

y.

Jew

ish

Agen

cy [S

tatu

s]

Law

, 195

2 an

d Je

wis

h N

atio

nal F

und

Law

, 19

53

Es

tabl

ishes

the

Wor

ld Z

ioni

st O

rgan

izatio

n, th

e Je

wish

Age

ncy

and

the

Jew

ish N

atio

nal F

und

as b

odie

s with

gov

ernm

enta

l st

atus

in fu

lfilli

ng Z

ioni

st o

bjec

tives

- th

e im

mig

ratio

n an

d se

ttle

men

t of J

ews i

n Pa

lest

ine.

- r

estr

icts t

he sa

le, t

rans

fer o

r lea

se o

f lan

d to

non

-Jew

s - p

rohi

bit n

on-Je

wish

[i.e

., Pa

lest

inia

n] c

itize

ns fr

om

acqu

iring

land

or l

easin

g la

nd, i

nclu

ding

land

take

n fr

om

them

und

er v

ario

us st

atut

es

Land

Acq

uisi

tion

(Val

idity

of

Act

s & C

ompe

nsa-

tion)

Law

(No.

25)

, 195

3

Co

nfisc

ated

the

land

; "va

lidat

es"

retr

oact

ivel

y th

eir u

se fo

r mili

-ta

ry p

urpo

ses a

nd fo

r Jew

ish se

ttle

men

ts.

- h

as c

onfis

cate

d th

e la

nd o

f mor

e th

an 4

00 P

ales

tinia

n vi

llage

s

Isra

el L

and

Adm

inis

tra-

tion

Law

, 196

0

- Am

endm

ent N

o. 7

, 200

9

Es

tabl

ishes

the

Isra

el L

and

Adm

inist

ratio

n (IL

A), g

ivin

g ha

lf of

its

coun

cil’s

seat

s to

the

gove

rnm

ent,

and

half

to th

e Je

wish

Nat

iona

l Fu

nd.

In

stitu

tes l

and

priv

atiza

tion,

mai

nly

of la

nd o

wne

d by

Pal

estin

ian

refu

gees

and

inte

rnal

ly d

ispl

aced

per

sons

, and

land

on

whi

ch se

ttle

men

ts a

re b

uilt.

- T

he IL

A ca

nnot

leas

e la

nd to

fore

ign

natio

nals,

whi

ch

incl

udes

Pal

estin

ian

resid

ents

of J

erus

alem

15


Basic

Law

: Isr

ael L

ands

, 19

60

St

ates

that

all

the

land

s ow

ned

by th

e st

ate

of Is

rael

will

rem

ain

in

stat

e ow

ners

hip,

and

cann

ot b

e tr

ansf

erre

d in

any

man

ner.

Use

of l

and

thro

ugh

leas

ing

right

s fro

m th

e IL

A fo

r a p

erio

d of

49

or 9

8 ye

ars p

ossib

le.

- ILA

can

not l

ease

land

to fo

reig

n na

tiona

ls, w

hich

incl

udes

Pa

lest

inia

n re

siden

ts o

f Jer

usal

em

N

atio

nal P

lann

ing

and

Build

ing

Law

, 196

5

Crea

tes a

syst

em o

f disc

rimin

ator

y ur

ban

plan

ning

pol

icies

, e.g

., by

pr

ohib

iting

bui

ldin

g in

are

as th

at la

ck p

ublic

infra

stru

ctur

e (ro

ads,

wat

er/s

anita

tion

serv

ices,

scho

ols,

hosp

itals,

etc

.).

Ar

t. 15

7a p

rohi

bits

nat

iona

l util

ity c

ompa

nies

from

con

nect

ing

a bu

ildin

g to

nat

iona

l ele

ctric

ity, w

ater

, and

pho

ne n

etw

orks

if it

la

cks a

bui

ldin

g pe

rmit.

- Loc

al T

own

Plan

ning

Sch

emes

(T

PS) a

re a

vaila

ble

and

allo

w

cons

truc

tion

and

expa

nsio

n of

Je

wish

are

as a

nd se

ttle

men

ts

- Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds h

ave

adeq

uate

pu

blic

infr

astr

uctu

re

- sev

erel

y lim

its c

onst

ruct

ion

as th

ere

are

no T

PS a

vaila

ble

for A

rab

loca

litie

s in

the

city

- r

educ

es th

e am

ount

of

land

ava

ilabl

e fo

r con

stru

ctio

n

- nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds h

ave

no a

dequ

ate

publ

ic in

fras

truc

ture

and

th

e re

quire

men

ts a

re n

early

impo

ssib

le to

be

met

in m

any

East

Jeru

sale

m a

reas

. La

w a

nd A

dmin

istr

atio

n O

rdin

ance

(Am

endm

ent

No.

11)

Law

, 196

7

St

ipul

ates

that

“th

e la

w, j

urisd

ictio

n an

d ad

min

istra

tion

of th

e St

ate

shal

l ext

end

to a

ny a

rea

of E

retz

Isra

el d

esig

nate

d by

the

Gove

rnm

ent b

y or

der.”

- i

nteg

rate

s the

eas

tern

par

t of J

erus

alem

to th

e m

unic

ipal

an

d ad

min

istra

tive

sphe

res.

Law

and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Ord

er (N

o. 1

), 19

67

Le

gal f

ram

ewor

k fo

r Isr

aeli

actio

ns in

Eas

t Jer

usal

em; s

tate

s tha

t "t

he te

rrito

ry o

f the

Lan

d of

Isra

el d

escr

ibed

in th

e ap

pend

ix [t

o th

is O

rder

] is h

ereb

y pr

ocla

imed

terr

itory

in w

hich

the

law

, ju

risdi

ctio

n, a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

of th

e St

ate

appl

y."

- T

he a

rea

incl

uded

in th

e ap

pend

ix is

the

70 k

m2 a

nnex

ed to

th

e ex

istin

g m

unic

ipal

are

a of

Wes

t Jer

usal

em.

Mun

icip

aliti

es O

rdin

ance

, (A

men

dmen

t No.

6),

1967

Auth

orize

s the

Min

ister

of t

he In

terio

r "to

ext

end,

by

proc

lam

atio

n th

e bo

rder

s of c

ity X

by

incl

udin

g th

e ar

ea se

t for

th

in a

n O

rder

pur

suan

t to

para

grap

h 11

B of

the

Law

and

Ad

min

istra

tion

Ord

inan

ce."

- e

xten

ded

the

mun

icip

ality

’s c

ontr

ol to

the

new

ly o

ccup

ied

area

Prot

ectio

n of

Hol

y Si

tes

Law

, 196

7

Empo

wer

s the

Min

istry

of R

elig

ious

Affa

irs to

des

igna

te th

e na

mes

of t

he h

oly

sites

in Is

rael

.

To d

ate,

135

Jew

ish si

tes w

ere

decl

ared

as h

oly

sites

- n

ot a

ny M

uslim

, Chr

istia

n, o

r Dru

ze si

tes w

ere

decl

ared

ho

ly p

lace

s.

Mili

tary

Ord

er N

o. 1

50

(196

8)

Al

low

s the

Cus

todi

an o

f Abs

ente

e Pr

oper

ty to

exp

ropr

iate

land

be

long

ing

to P

ales

tinia

ns w

ho w

ere

not r

ecor

ded

in th

e of

ficia

l Ea

st Je

rusa

lem

cens

us Is

rael

cond

ucte

d fo

llow

ing

the

1967

war

Not

app

licab

le

- dec

lare

d la

nd a

s bel

ongi

ng to

an

"abs

ente

e," r

ever

ting

it to

th

e Cu

stod

ian

of A

bsen

tee

Prop

erty

(i.e

. the

stat

e).

Mili

tary

Ord

er 2

91 (1

968)

Term

inat

es th

e la

nd (a

nd w

ater

) reg

istra

tion

proc

ess b

egun

un

der J

orda

nian

rule

N

ot a

pplic

able

- h

inde

rs P

ales

tinia

ns fr

om re

gist

erin

g la

nd o

wne

rshi

p

Mili

tary

Ord

er 3

21 (1

968)

Entit

les a

utho

ritie

s to

expr

opria

te a

ny la

nd re

quire

d fo

r "pu

blic

use"

“P

ublic

” m

eans

for J

ews o

nly

- use

d al

mos

t exc

lusiv

ely

to e

xpro

pria

te P

ales

tinia

n la

nd

The

Lega

l and

Adm

inis

-tr

ativ

e M

atte

rs (R

egul

a-tio

n) L

aw (C

onso

lidat

ed

Vers

ion)

, 197

0

La

id o

ut th

e ru

les f

or h

ow Is

rael

i law

is to

be

impl

emen

ted

in

East

Jeru

sale

m (t

rans

ition

from

Jord

ania

n to

Isra

el la

w)

Not

app

licab

le

- pro

vide

s tha

t a p

erso

n is

an “

abse

ntee

” vi

s-à-

vis h

is/he

r pr

oper

ty u

nder

the

Abse

ntee

s' Pr

oper

ty L

aw if

s/he

was

not

pr

esen

t on

the

day

of a

nnex

atio

n (2

7 Ju

ne 1

967)

- p

erm

its in

divi

dual

cla

ims f

or re

stitu

tion

of p

re-1

948

prop

-er

ty in

Eas

t Jer

usal

em b

ut n

ot in

Wes

t Jer

usal

em (w

here

m

ost a

band

oned

Pal

estin

ian

prop

erty

is lo

cate

d).

Th

e Je

rusa

lem

Mas

ter

(Out

line)

Pla

n 20

00, 2

004

(upd

ated

in 2

009)

Se

rves

as a

man

dato

ry m

ap fo

r lan

d us

e an

d a

blue

prin

t for

m

unic

ipal

pla

nnin

g pu

rpos

es u

p to

203

0 (in

itial

ly 2

020)

; m

aint

ains

the

goal

a 3

0:70

pop

ulat

ion

ratio

Trea

ts th

e ci

ty a

s one

urb

an u

nit u

nder

Isra

eli s

over

eign

ty

- Inc

lude

s pla

ns fo

r ten

s of

thou

sand

s of n

ew h

ousin

g un

its

in Je

wish

are

as.

- Acc

eler

ates

Isra

eli d

evel

op-

men

t in

cent

ral J

erus

alem

- sev

erel

y un

dere

stim

ates

the

cons

truc

tion

need

s for

the

Pale

stin

ians

and

igno

res t

hat t

hey

mak

e up

alre

ady

alm

ost

40%

of t

he p

opul

atio

n - p

lans

are

mai

nly

in th

e pe

riphe

ral n

eigh

borh

oods

- p

ropo

ses n

o ne

w in

dust

rial,

com

mer

cial

, ser

vice

or

deve

lopm

ent a

reas

- p

oor p

lann

ing

for p

ublic

bui

ldin

gs

Isra

eli R

egio

nal

Urb

an

Plan

No.

30,

201

0

M

akin

g Je

rusa

lem

a Je

wish

nat

iona

l prio

rity

area

and

pro

mot

e it

as th

e “u

nite

d Je

wish

cap

ital”

for t

he Je

wish

maj

ority

, as “

the

hear

t of t

he Je

wish

peo

ple”

and

the

cultu

ral a

nd sp

iritu

al c

ente

r fo

r Jew

s in

Isra

el a

nd a

roun

d th

e w

orld

.

Enco

urag

es y

oung

Jew

s to

sett

le

in Je

rusa

lem

by

offe

ring

tax

be

nefit

s and

affo

rdab

le h

ousin

g

- tr

eats

the

east

ern

part

of J

erus

alem

as a

n em

pty

spac

e,

with

out a

pop

ulat

ion,

and

ent

irely

ava

ilabl

e fo

r us

e by

se

ttle

rs.

Polit

ical

Basic

Law

: Jer

usal

em,

Capi

tal o

f Isr

ael,

1980

Defin

es E

ast J

erus

alem

as a

par

t of “

Jeru

sale

m, u

nite

d an

d co

mpl

ete”

, whi

ch is

the

capi

tal o

f Isr

ael

- i

gnor

es th

at E

ast J

erus

alem

is o

ccup

ied

terr

itory

acc

ordi

ng

to in

tern

atio

nal l

aw

16


Kindly supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung

(FES), Jerusalem

Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs

- Am

endm

ent,

2000

Prov

ides

a le

gal a

nd c

onst

itutio

nal d

efen

se fo

r the

app

licat

ion

of

Isra

eli l

aw in

Eas

t Jer

usal

em a

nd li

mits

the

abili

ty to

cha

nge

the

city

’s “

area

” an

d ju

risdi

ctio

n Em

erge

ncy

Pow

ers (

De-

tent

ion)

Law

, 197

9

Empo

wer

s the

Min

ister

of D

efen

se to

aut

horiz

e a

dete

ntio

n if

he

has r

easo

nabl

e ca

use

to b

elie

ve th

at “

reas

ons o

f sta

te se

curit

y or

pub

lic se

curit

y” re

quire

it.

Au

thor

izes t

he u

se o

f adm

inist

rativ

e de

tent

ion

Rare

ly u

sed

(rec

ently

app

lied

to

susp

ects

in th

e Du

ma

terr

orist

ar

son

whi

ch le

ft th

ree

mem

bers

of

the

Daw

absh

eh fa

mily

dea

d)

- tar

gets

Pal

estin

ian

prot

ests

and

mak

e m

ass a

rres

ts to

stifl

e po

litic

al d

ecen

t - u

sed

exte

nsiv

ely

to d

etai

n Pa

lest

inia

ns w

ithou

t tria

l and

w

ithou

t per

mitt

ing

cont

act w

ith la

wye

rs

Jeru

sale

m D

evel

opm

ent

Auth

ority

Law

No.

65,

19

88

En

tren

ches

Isra

el’s

cla

im to

sove

reig

nty

over

Jeru

sale

m,

esta

blish

ing

the

Jeru

sale

m D

evel

opm

ent A

utho

rity

(JDA)

re

spon

sible

for a

ny d

evel

opm

ent,

reso

urce

allo

catio

n, a

nd

prom

otio

n of

nat

iona

l bod

ies i

n th

e ci

ty

Can

be m

embe

rs in

the

coun

cil

of th

e JD

A Ca

nnot

be

mem

bers

in th

e co

unci

l of t

he JD

A (m

embe

rshi

p in

is re

stric

ted

to Is

rael

i nat

iona

ls)

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Agre

emen

t on

Gaz

a an

d Je

richo

(Res

tric

tions

of

Activ

ity),

1994

Fo

rbid

s Pal

estin

ian

activ

ity “u

nles

s with

the

agre

emen

t of t

he

Israe

li go

vern

men

t, to

pre

vent

the

Pale

stin

ian

Auth

ority

or P

LO

dipl

omat

ic or

gov

ernm

enta

l act

ivity

or a

nyth

ing

simila

r with

in th

e bo

rder

s of t

he st

ate

of Is

rael

that

was

not

cons

isten

t with

resp

ect

for t

he so

vere

ignt

y of

the

Stat

e of

Isra

el.”

Not

app

licab

le

- sev

erel

y lim

its P

ales

tinia

n ac

tivity

in th

e ci

ty a

nd p

reve

nts

man

y ev

ents

from

bei

ng h

eld

- com

plic

ates

rela

tions

bet

wee

n Pa

lest

inia

n re

siden

ts a

nd

the

PA a

nd le

aves

the

form

er in

a le

ader

ship

vac

uum

Judi

cial

Crim

inal

Pro

cedu

re L

aw -

Inte

rrog

atin

g Su

spec

ts,

2002

- D

etai

nee

Susp

ecte

d of

Se

curit

y O

ffenc

e (T

empo

-ra

ry O

rder

), 20

06, 2

010

-Am

endm

ent N

o. 6

(201

2)

Re

mov

es p

roce

dura

l saf

egua

rds f

rom

det

aine

es su

spec

ted

of

secu

rity

offe

nses

that

are

pro

vide

d to

crim

inal

sus

pect

s

Regu

late

s det

entio

n pr

oced

ures

for t

hose

susp

ecte

d of

secu

rity

offe

nses

- d

eten

tion

befo

re b

eing

bro

ught

bef

ore

judg

e:

- det

entio

n w

ithou

t bei

ng in

dict

ed

- det

entio

n w

ith d

enie

d ac

cess

to a

law

yer

- det

entio

n ex

tens

ion

Allo

ws t

he in

terr

ogat

ions

of “

secu

rity

susp

ects

” no

t to

be a

udio

-vi

sual

ly re

cord

ed.

Rare

ly a

pplic

able

(Jew

s are

prin

-ci

pally

trea

ted

as c

rimin

al su

s-pe

cts)

N

on-s

ecur

ity su

spec

t: - f

or u

p to

48

hour

s - f

or u

p to

30

days

- f

or u

p to

48

hour

s - f

or u

p to

15

days

at a

tim

e

- tar

gets

and

disc

rimin

ates

aga

inst

“se

curit

y pr

isone

rs”,

who

ar

e ov

erw

helm

ingl

y Pa

lest

inia

ns

Secu

rity

susp

ect:

- f

or u

p to

96

hour

s (ex

tend

able

by

cour

t ord

er)

- for

up

to 3

5 da

ys

- for

up

to 2

1 da

ys

- for

up

to 2

0 da

ys a

t a ti

me

Isra

eli P

rison

s Ord

inan

ce

- Am

endm

ent N

o. 4

0 (M

eetin

gs w

ith L

awye

rs),

2011

- A

men

dmen

t No.

43,

20

12

Al

low

s the

Isra

el P

rison

Ser

vice

(IPS

) to

proh

ibit

“sec

urity

” pr

isone

rs fr

om m

eetin

g th

eir l

awye

rs o

n su

spic

ion

that

such

m

eetin

gs m

ay le

ad to

the

tran

sfer

of i

nfor

mat

ion

rela

ting

to a

te

rror

org

aniz

atio

n

May

rest

rict t

he n

umbe

r of l

awye

rs a

ble

to v

isit s

ecur

ity

priso

ners

for a

per

iod

of th

ree

mon

ths (

exte

ndab

le)

Al

low

s dist

rict c

ourt

s to

exte

nd th

e pr

ohib

ition

per

iod

for u

p to

6

mon

ths a

t a ti

me,

with

out e

xam

inat

ion

of a

ny e

vide

nce

Rare

ly a

pplic

able

- pre

vent

s sec

urity

pris

oner

s fro

m e

ffect

ivel

y ac

cess

ing

the

cour

ts a

nd o

btai

ning

redr

ess

Auth

oriti

es fo

r Pre

serv

ing

Publ

ic S

afet

y La

w (A

men

d-m

ent N

o. 5

& T

empo

rary

Pr

ovisi

on),

2016

au

thor

izes p

olic

e to

sear

ch a

nyon

e w

ithou

t a w

arra

nt if

they

had

re

ason

able

susp

icio

n (p

roba

ble

caus

e) th

at th

e pe

rson

was

ca

rryi

ng a

wea

pon

illeg

ally

(on

thei

r per

son

or in

thei

r car

), or

w

as p

lann

ing

to c

omm

it a

crim

e w

ith a

wea

pon

Rare

ly a

pplic

able

- cle

arly

targ

ets P

ales

tinia

ns

Soci

al

Offi

cial

Hea

lth In

sura

nce

Law

, 19

94

Co

nditi

ons r

ight

to o

btai

ning

med

ical

trea

tmen

t on

bein

g a

“Isr

aeli

resid

ent ’

in th

e te

rrito

ry”,

def

ined

as “

one

who

wor

ks o

r liv

es in

the

Wes

t Ban

k an

d Ga

za a

nd is

an

Isra

eli c

itize

n or

has

th

e rig

ht to

ent

er to

Isra

el a

ccor

ding

the

Law

of R

etur

n

Entit

les W

est B

ank

sett

lers

to

the

sam

e rig

hts a

nd b

enef

its a

s Is

rael

i citi

zens

in Is

rael

pro

per

- con

ditio

ns m

edic

al h

ealth

serv

ices

on

valid

resi

denc

y st

atus

in

Jeru

sale

m (i

.e.,

revo

ked

ID C

ard

mea

ns lo

sing

the

right

to

med

ical

trea

tmen

t)

Soci

al S

ecur

ity (C

ombi

ned

Text

) Law

, 199

5, A

rtic

le

378

Li

mits

the

right

s and

ben

efits

gra

nted

by

the

Law

to “

Isra

eli

resid

ent ’

in th

e te

rrito

ry”,

def

ined

as “

one

who

wor

ks o

r liv

es in

th

e W

est B

ank

and

Gaza

and

is a

n Is

rael

i citi

zen

or h

as th

e rig

ht

to e

nter

to Is

rael

acc

ordi

ng th

e La

w o

f Ret

urn

Entit

les W

est B

ank

sett

lers

to

the

sam

e rig

hts a

nd b

enef

its a

s Is

rael

i citi

zens

in Is

rael

pro

per

- dep

rives

Eas

t Jer

usal

emite

s of s

ocia

l sec

urity

righ

ts a

nd

bene

fits i

f the

y m

ove

to th

e W

est B

ank

or G

aza,

incl

udin

g Ea

st Je

rusa

lem

ite m

othe

rs g

ivin

g bi

rth

in Is

rael

i hos

pita

ls, if

th

ey li

ve in

the

Wes

t Ban

k or

Gaz

a

legal status & treatment -...

Documents